Jump to content
Stray Fawn Community
  • 3

logic bypassers - more complex logic


Ateready

Suggestion

My idea for an improvement is that signals can be sent from one logic body to another, either separated by a connector or splitter, using logic bypassers. Logic bypassers would come in two forms: Constant logic bypassers and active logic bypassers. Logic bypassers would allow the blue led to be powered on the upper part of the craft below, while the improvement to connectors would allow the button above to power the red led below. Active Logic bypassers would be turned on by a certain binding, and while active would route all logic inputs from its logic body to the selected logic body. Constant Logic bypassers would do the same but without an activation: they would always be active. Basically, this would allow a signal from the play to an active personal drone to send, but only if its active and only one way. These splitters would be a useful tool for allowing some inputs of a drone, but not others, to pass.

For example, if I wanted to create many personal drones, but with more key bindings than currently available, i couldn't right now.  With connectors working the way they are right now, if i wanted the controls on all drones to be accessible, I would have to put them all on splitters, due to how they use more bindings than available, then put connectors for the cameras. The problem is, however, that i can look from their perspective using the cameras, but I just can't send inputs to the rest of the craft. With a logic bypasser, however, i could place one and the craft would respond to my touch, but it wouldn't send signals to the rest of the drone.

This is also useful with nitpickers like me who want to make their craft 'accident proof'. With the use of logic bypassers and better logic connections, one could make a logic craft have all the useful inputs sent in, and all the useful outputs sent out (or used on the craft) , but if somebody tried to press any of the bindings for the actual processing, they couldn't make it output something it wouldn't have otherwise.

Logic bypassers would have a huge potential, and hopefully we could have them only let certain signals through (like WASD), transcending this game's impressive logic to a whole new level. Who knows, if the developers of NImbatus read and implement this, we could reach beyond the key bindings!

Thanks for reading this, I hope you are interested!

Screenshot (42).png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 replies to this suggestion

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Right  now, you can pass logic to only part of a craft on the other side of a splitter, I bellieve. The wireless transmitters pass signals only to their children.  So you can have sub drones whose signals don't interfere with each other, but also have a measure of central control over them. 

There have been updates since I last observed this, so feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken. 

Edit: I would still like logic not to transmit by default, though. We have a wireless part for that, and breaking contact gives us another source of information by which to control our drones. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 10/25/2018 at 11:07 PM, Lurkily said:

Right  now, you can pass logic to only part of a craft on the other side of a splitter, I bellieve. The wireless transmitters pass signals only to their children.  So you can have sub drones whose signals don't interfere with each other, but also have a measure of central control over them. 

Yes, you are mainly correct, as of the current update, you can have the main drone body send and receive signals between the section with the logic connector. What I should have mentioned is that the sub-bodies of the main drone, separated by logic splitters, cannot communicate between parts attached to connectors attached to the splitters. This bugs me as I see no reason why the main drone works this way, while logic sub-bodies with their own sub-bodies do not. I updated the demonstration bot (dark blue for the connector body, cyan for the main drone and red for the splitter but not connector body) to include the main drone relationship and created a diagram of how I think logic bypassers should work or how connectors could be reworked. I hope this better shows what I mean.

On 10/26/2018 at 1:11 AM, ManTheMister said:

Much of what you said above can already be done with A) Tags, and B) logic connectors. Logic connectors only connect signals that are on pieces that it is the parent of.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but logic connectors work only with the main logic body and are splitters to any sub-bodies that they are a part of, not communicating with each other even though the connector isn't supposed to break signals.

In the graphs below, if there is not a blue arrow directly to one place from another, but they do indirectly go there, that means that the intermediary logic bodies receive the signal, but have to respond to it and create their own to pass it on by using if gates, for example.

In fact, logic bypassers might be redundant, as they would only do what the rework does, and the rework wouldn't do any harm at all as the signals would only go to the connector body, and it would have to make a decision of whether or not to pass it on by using an if gate or something else.

Just in case, here's the name for the demonstration drone as well: Demonstration_Drone_36482

logic bypassers.docx

Screenshot (44).png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

So . . . Maybe it's lack of coffee, but I'm having trouble parsing all this . . . your main objections is that split-off drones can't communicate with each other; they only send signals back to the core, and to relay them to a different sub-drone, you need an if-gate to produce a new signal from the core.  Yes?

Would making wireless receivers take signals from other wireless receivers solve this?

This is another idea that I like, that also might present a solution.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I was trying something and this topic, if I understand it, maybe has something to do with a problem Im having. I was trying my hand at making a drone that has the main body separate from the core that has most of the logic stuff... and maybe its just that Im doing something wrong or Im being too grandiose for my first attempt but Im stumped with a couple simple parts.

The first problem being I want to make a factory so it can make new ships if something goes awry during the mission. So I wanted to set up a decoupler connected to a logic splitter so the ship is effectively "off" until I release it, but the logic splitter turns off the decoupler as well meaning it cant be released. Here's a picture for an example. 8159a8b5c2.jpg

So I tried it next in reverse, which only led to decoupling the ship with the logic splitter still attached which still left the ship in off mode. Seems legit at least. Next I tried running the decoupler to a logic connector, and then running that logic connector to the logic splitter. The idea behind it being to have the ship still separated and "off" but the decoupler still able to get signals.  Take another picture why dontcha? 49f411d50a.jpg

This only "sorta" worked... as while the decoupler worked, so still did the rest of the ship. This basically means that the logic splitter was effectively rendered powerless, since anything also attached to the decoupler was turned back on as well not "just" the decoupler. Also, its weird the decoupler doesnt let go of each end its attached to... aka my ship still had a decoupler and wire attached to the side of it. :/ I decided just to use explosives to destroy the splitter and some free hinges to connect things in a way my ship wasnt damage... as an aside I find it strange that we dont have options for tnt to increase or decrease the damage or the size of the explosion. >.>

Anyway, my next bet was to simply use dynamite before the logic splitter to destroy it instead, but that doesnt really solve the problem. Why? Because I also ran into the same problem trying to have a simplified multiple auto turret. One auto turret works fine, but having more than one has them all acting off each others signals. I tried again with the logic splitter, but that just disabled the turret protecting my "brains". I tried with the splitter and connector, and that again didn't block the signals from one turret to the other.

It'd be nice to "contain" the signals so they cant cross contaminate, but it left me with the only options of either having a bunch more logic blocks to differentiate through the signals manually, or to be lazy and let them all fire indiscriminately anytime any of them sensed an enemy. I decided to be lazy until I can figure it out... also as another aside I find it odd power isnt shared but logic is. There was something else I wanted to say but Im a bit tired and I cant remember and for some reason the forum wont let me make another paragraph... whats with this size limit thing?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This is one reason why I'd like logic to be local in the way that fuel and energy is.  Anything it breaks can be fixed with a wireless transmitter, and it makes the control of subdrones before and after their decoupling a LOT easier.

Right now, it's very complicated (How do you even do it?) to have a subdrone that starts with a splitter (so two subdrones can't crosstalk) know whether it's been released.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
13 hours ago, Lurkily said:

This is one reason why I'd like logic to be local in the way that fuel and energy is.  Anything it breaks can be fixed with a wireless transmitter, and it makes the control of subdrones before and after their decoupling a LOT easier.

Right now, it's very complicated (How do you even do it?) to have a subdrone that starts with a splitter (so two subdrones can't crosstalk) know whether it's been released.

Hmm, I got to thinking actually a few things that are troublesome that could be easy enough to fix.

First, anything that breaks energy connection should also break logic unless it has a wireless transmitter attached to it... cuz if not whats even the point of the wireless transmitter?

Second, have at least some simple logic for the logic splitter... say for instance at least an on/off function.

Third, have some basic options for dynamite like changing the size or damage of the explosion and maybe some smaller and bigger variants. Still, Id like just a tiny 1x1 tnt that we can make stronger or weaker, bigger or smaller. I dont see why it needs to be as big as a rocket.

Lastly... have a decoupler detach anything that's attached to it, because if not how are you supposed to remove them after without dynamite and whats their purpose if you can't use it to reattach something?

If any of these things would be done it would greatly improve things, and I dont see why any of it would be that difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 hours ago, Lurkily said:

This is one reason why I'd like logic to be local in the way that fuel and energy is.

This is a great point, in fact, this could fix some of the problems with current logic in many ways. With this kind of feature, disconnection would be the logic splitter. In fact, with this as a base for new logic, some major changes could be made to allow for better logic. The assumption on how this would work is that anything on a decoupler, factory, or not attached to the main drone effectively has a logic splitter.

Hmm... getting further into the subject of better logic makes me re-think what I've said. It makes a lot of sense for logic to not transmit when disconnected. I'm thinking of changing the suggestion to this, tell me what you think:

-connectors and splitters are removed, but ther functions are still imitable

-logic disconnects like energy, so anything attached to a decoupler, factory, or disconnected is automatically part of a different logic group

-logic can be sent to other disconnected parts of the drone via logic transmitters and receivers

-receivers each have their own number to identify them and send signals to the rest of the drone their on. The drone core has a built in receiver

-transmitters can select which receiver they send signals to, and can be always on, on only when a key is pressed, switched on/off and can have a separate option of sending all signals from their drone or only one of them

And that's it. I believe this wouldn't be too hard to implement, it would fix the problem with how drones communicate, while still letting drones function exactly how they do. As I said, what do you think? Should it work like this? Should I change the post to this? I feel this is a valuable discussion and changing the entire post's name and would be reckless.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I would absolutely keep splitters and wireless connections.  As events only propogate to a wireless block's children, not parents, the logic that affects the drone can be very selective by making only parts with certain inputs children of the wireless block. Local logic and our current parts can create both local and selective logic without crosstalk.  Wireless tranceivers aren't strictly needed with local logic.

Rather than changing a suggestion, repost a new one, and perhaps delete your old one, if you like.  This will present a new vote count, accurate to a new idea.  But first, look for duplicates.  Try adding your voice to this: 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...